An Automotive designer points out the aesthetic basics

Who cares what it looks like!... That right there just throws what a real cafe bike is out the window and just says," Hey! look at me! don't I look cool!?.." Instead of performing at it finest to the shear limits you dare to take it. Oh... Wait the shear limits of those bikes built on aesthetics is just getting off the trailer,lol..

What happened to that thread? That was fast.

But you should care how your bike looks. This idea that bikes can either look good or perform well is utterly retarded. It's not difficult to make a bike that does both.

That article doesn't discuss anything at all about performance and doesn't suggest anything that would inherently limit performance. All it talks about are lines and how to best utilize them to make a good looking bike.

Beauty is in the eye of the maker not the viewer.. Yes there are builds based on both but the original idea of a cafe wasn't to look good. It was to get the job done the best with what you have or can make.

both is and probably should be the goal.
That being said, if you must compromise, which comes first?
Form or Function?


Many (if not most) of us here tend to be of the opinion that Function should be the first among equals.


If you can't ride it safely, it's no longer a true motorcycle but rather a motorcycle inspired art experience.
(nothing wrong with that, mind you, just call it what it is from the get go)

A good conversation on design, but I turn my head at Comstar wheels and those dreaded Firestone tires. At some point, I just hear wah wah wah wah wah wah...

I agree that there were technical choices in his example that I don't personally agree with, but that cx looks a damn site better than the stock example. At least it has fenders!


My point (as someone who has taught Intro to Art & Aesthetics before) is that a lot of the time we look at something and either 'like' it or not.
Not many really think why they like it.


The lines mentioned are a very good starting point to critique builds on the "form" side of the coin rather than the "function".
(and IMO the 'function' should take priority over 'form' but both should be in the conversation...)

This was my response I posted over at BE.

"This article needs to be re-titled. This has nothing to do with how to 'build' a cafe racer. If the article was titled 'How to build an F1 car' and all it talked about was purely aesthetic aspects of the design with no mention of performance at all, it likely wouldn't have made it past step 1 of editing.

From a designer's perspective, I can appreciate the observations and suggestions made. The article should be better represented as such, but clearly they know how to get attention and drive the discussion by being intentionally provocative.

If you're really 'building' a 'cafe racer', aesthetics should be the last thing on your mind, just as they are when someone 'builds' an F1 car, or any other vehicle designed for speed and agility. Form follows function, and this is all about form. Has little to nothing to do with function.

Everything described above is primarily a happy accident. You can find amazing parallels, aesthetically pleasing lines etc. in nature - they weren't put there on purpose - they're the result of millions of years of evolution tailored by natural selection.

I firmly believe that if you build something to be as functional as possible, it will always 'look' good. Plain and simple."

I merged the two discussions going on. Not sure what happened to the original post - must not have met our strict design standards.

Ah!
I got confused there.
I intended to make a new thread on the EXIF article and was then perplexed when it showed up here.
Perhaps I should re-post the link...

THe Bike Exif design article in question:
http://www.bikeexif.com/build-cafe-racer


Linky link

I have to disagree, but it's really just semantics. There are a lot of decisions that go into a bike build, and not all of them are purely performance related. How many people choose a seat based on it's aerodynamics? Or even the tank for that matter?

Let's face it, we're not building F1 cars here. We're building bikes in our sheds that we ride for fun (most of us, at least).

Tim said:

I merged the two discussions going on. Not sure what happened to the original post - must not have met our strict design standards.

Click to expand...

I guess that's why it said I had no permissions to post...
Of of my heroes, Dieter Rams explains it well in his Ten Tenets of Good Design ( since Tim stole my other words ;D )

Good design:
1. Is innovative - The possibilities for progression are not, by any means, exhausted. Technological development is always offering new opportunities for original designs. But imaginative design always develops in tandem with improving technology, and can never be an end in itself.

2. Makes a product useful - A product is bought to be used. It has to satisfy not only functional, but also psychological and aesthetic criteria. Good design emphasizes the usefulness of a product whilst disregarding anything that could detract from it.

3. Is aesthetic- The aesthetic quality of a product is integral to its usefulness because products are used every day and have an effect on people and their well-being. Only well-executed objects can be beautiful.

4. Makes a product understandable - It clarifies the product’s structure. Better still, it can make the product clearly express its function by making use of the user's intuition. At best, it is self-explanatory.

5. Is unobtrusive - Products fulfilling a purpose are like tools. They are neither decorative objects nor works of art. Their design should therefore be both neutral and restrained, to leave room for the user's self-expression.

6. Is honest - It does not make a product appear more innovative, powerful or valuable than it really is. It does not attempt to manipulate the consumer with promises that cannot be kept.

7. Is long-lasting - It avoids being fashionable and therefore never appears antiquated. Unlike fashionable design, it lasts many years – even in today's throwaway society.

8. Is thorough down to the last detail - Nothing must be arbitrary or left to chance. Care and accuracy in the design process show respect towards the consumer.

9. Is environmentally friendly - Design makes an important contribution to the preservation of the environment. It conserves resources and minimizes physical and visual pollution throughout the lifecycle of the product.

10. Is as little design as possible - Less, but better – because it concentrates on the essential aspects, and the products are not burdened with non-essentials. Back to purity, back to simplicity.

TIM. This was my response I posted over at BE.

"This article needs to be re-titled. This has nothing to do with how to 'build' a cafe racer. If the article was titled 'How to build an F1 car' and all it talked about was purely aesthetic aspects of the design with no mention of performance at all, it likely wouldn't have made it past step 1 of editing.

From a designer's perspective, I can appreciate the observations and suggestions made. The article should be better represented as such, but clearly they know how to get attention and drive the discussion by being intentionally provocative.

If you're really 'building' a 'cafe racer', aesthetics should be the last thing on your mind, just as they are when someone 'builds' an F1 car, or any other vehicle designed for speed and agility. Form follows function, and this is all about form. Has little to nothing to do with function.

Everything described above is primarily a happy accident. You can find amazing parallels, aesthetically pleasing lines etc. in nature - they weren't put there on purpose - they're the result of millions of years of evolution tailored by natural selection.

I firmly believe that if you build something to be as functional as possible, it will always 'look' good. Plain and simple."

Click to expand...

PREACH BROTHER!! I did see that comment and loved it and couldn't contain myself. My bike is not pretty to me. It has alot of flaws but I get comments all the time saying that it's a beautiful bike. Then I have to graciously say thanks but then quickly followed by it's my daily beater, it's not pretty.

Yes, Dieter, you have it precisely.

function over form but the eye wants something too...

same as you want your girlfriend to give good head and look good at the same time. you wouldn't want to wake up next to a girl who looks like she got hit in the face with a shovel, do you?

best. analogy. ever.

I dont get why everyone wants to get their panties in a huge bunch every time aesthetics is brought up.
Everyone likes to act like they are Burt Munro building a superbike in their garage. Face it, 99.96% of us aren't.

If you build a bike purely for performance you are absolutely, 100%, unequivocally, NOT going to chose a bike from the 60's 70's or 80's that came from the factory with a shit frame, shit handling, and shit power. It just doesnt make any sense at all. Go buy a sport bike that comes from the factory with a great frame, handles great, and has loads of power, then if you want to modify it great make it better.

You're building a "cafe racer" because you want something different, or cheaper, or something you can work on yourself, or a plethora of other reason. Anyone who say's performance is the only goal to building a vintage bike is full of shit.
Except maybe texasstar and Zeke with that crazy 200 ;D

Tim said:

I merged the two discussions going on. Not sure what happened to the original post - must not have met our strict design standards.

Click to expand...

If referencing my thread... I deleted it because I didnt want to be the one accused of creating the drama. I get enough of that in other folks discussions



Anyhow, my point with the now deleted thread (if thats whats being referenced) was simply that the article was a pretentious atttempt at relevance by a website that's more interested in fashion than function.

Tim put down in non Neanderthal words what I was shooting for. The article should be titled "how to get virtual hand jobs from blog writers through the magic of DESIGN". I imagine there being glitter and $15 beers involved.

SONIC. said:

If you build a bike purely for performance you are absolutely, 100%, unequivocally, NOT going to chose a bike from the 60's 70's or 80's that came from the factory with a shit frame, shit handling, and shit power. It just doesnt make any sense at all. Go buy a sport bike that comes from the factory with a great frame, handles great, and has loads of power, then if you want to modify it great make it better.

You're building a "cafe racer" because you want something different, or cheaper, or something you can work on yourself, or a plethora of other reason. Anyone who say's performance is the only goal to building a vintage bike is full of shit.
Except maybe texasstar and Zeke with that crazy 200 ;D

Click to expand...

Here's my take...

You can't always make something perfect, but you can almost always make it better. This is a builder's forum and I we tend to attract a large group of folks who take joy in the improvement of what they have. It's not necessarily about maximizing, but rather optimizing what you have. There's a lot to be said about someone willing learn the knowledge and skills necessary toward improving old things. Anyone can buy performance.

SONIC. said:

I dont get why everyone wants to get their panties in a huge bunch every time aesthetics is brought up.
Everyone likes to act like they are Burt Munro building a superbike in their garage. Face it, 99.96% of us aren't.

If you build a bike purely for performance you are absolutely, 100%, unequivocally, NOT going to chose a bike from the 60's 70's or 80's that came from the factory with a shit frame, shit handling, and shit power. It just doesnt make any sense at all. Go buy a sport bike that comes from the factory with a great frame, handles great, and has loads of power, then if you want to modify it great make it better.

You're building a "cafe racer" because you want something different, or cheaper, or something you can work on yourself, or a plethora of other reason. Anyone who say's performance is the only goal to building a vintage bike is full of shit.
Except maybe texasstar and Zeke with that crazy 200 ;D

Click to expand...

Hey dude, I hope you don't think my panties are in a wad 'cause they're fitting comfortably in my crotch. ;D I know neither bike I'm building , the 360 or the 175, will ever "Do The Ton." They are cheap and easy, with immediate gratification. I do love Dieter Rams, though. And I try to follow his theories as closely as I can. They have served me well in my career. For what you do, they may serve you well too. I seem to recall a nice Rosewood or Walnut table with clean design and stainless steel legs that fits right in with Rams' philosophy.